WASHINGTON (AP) - In the strongest message yet from the U.S. government, the House voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.

The resolution was initiated by Republicans as a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has been reluctant to criticize Tehran's handling of disputed elections that left hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.

Rep. Mike Pence, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he disagrees with the administration that it must not meddle in Iran's affairs.

"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."

Democrats, who are quick to voice their support for Israel anytime the Jewish state is seen as under siege, easily agreed to push through the mildly worded resolution.

Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-sponsor of the resolution, said "it is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election.

"But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation," added Berman, D-Calif.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., have proposed a similar measure in the Senate, although a vote was not certain.

The policy statement expresses support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections."

You have yet to explain how the second event would have the same outcome as the first. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the situation. We are not the same country we were in the 1950’s, supporting a bad leader in effort to stave off communism and believing the ends would justify the means. When we stand in support of our principles, the outcome will not be the same as when we stand in defiance of our principles.

302
posted on 06/20/2009 9:00:08 PM PDT
by The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)

You are crazy. It is just a resolution not an invasion of Iran. Dopes like you give libertarians a bad name. You are beyond the fringe

I just read my history. The growth of tyranical big government programs, both with the welfare AND warfare states, often begins in incremental, seemingly harmless, ways. A resolution that officially picks sides (in this case in favor of a slightly less ISLAMIST faction that lost an election) and will probably lead to other policies. There are repeated examples of such incremental change. I suggest you read the Federalist Papers if this a new concept to you. The founders were well aware of it.

Dope? Crazy? Do you use that kind of invective and name-calling with people you know on a daily basis or do you just pound your chest and turn red when they disagree with you?

Well a strong statement will be all that the current congress will do. Any more than resolutions will require decisive action and some backbone and we know the current Congress has neither. The NoKo’s do this same kind of stunt every time they want more money, food or other types of aid from the US

We all know how this will end. Negotiations, signed agreement, 1 Billion aid from US and a promise not to do it until the next President is elected.

I do not support a ten, fifteen year action as it is clearly not in the defense of our nation.

Did you ever stop to think that if it were really as clear as you say it is, we would be hearing this from the troops themselves? They understand what's going on. We're fighting an ideology that transcend geo-political boundaries. It can not be contained by conventional mechanisms, and it can not be defended against with conventional mechanisms.Their ideology is not worn as a uniform so they can walk amongst us. They do not fight their way in; they destroy from the inside out. The one point that you, Ron Paul, and everyone else who share your view fail to realize is that they have already declared war on us, and your failure to realize this, or give it credibility, is because you don't understand the nature of the enemy. Because you can't correlate it with a uniform or country, you simply dismiss it as unimportant.

Just as they fight from within, so must we, and it *is* in defense of the security of this Nation, and I think that your suggestion that it isn't, borders on dishonoring our men and women in uniform.

Where in that vapid, silly document you kindly linked for me does it say that a state of war exists between the United States and the Republic of Iraq? Hate to sound like a scold, but words mean things!

"This is in spite of a nonstop campaign by the militant IslamistsMoselm Fundamentalists." There. Fixed it for ya. There is no such word as "Islamist." That is a pseudo-word not found in any English-language dictionary. It was probably coined by some Ledeen or Gaffney-type of hack. Remember, words mean things, and non-words mean nothing. BTW, you should change your handle to AmericanArchNEOConservative. At least you wouldn't be guilty of false advertising.

This is not about our troops. I respect, honor and support our service men and woman. This debate is not about them.

This is about our foreign policy as it applies to the constitution.

This is not about ideology. Who are we to dictate THEIR ideology anyhow.

We went there with a purpose “supposedly” to disarm the regime, free the people from tyranny and enforce the U.N. resolutions (which I still can't figure out our relationship with the U.N. and why it's pertinent to our country.)

I believe this may have been our purpose, but secretly there is yet another agenda. This is why we are still there.

It is up to the Iraqis and or the Afghans to rise up and take back their own freedom.

Is it our fault they may be a weak people?

Look at the South Vietnamese for instance. We had the same issues getting these guys to muster up the umph to fight for their own freedom.

Think of it this way. The U.N. perceived Texans as oppressing the poor immigrant population from Mexico.

We here in Texas feel that we have been invaded illegally and all attempts to get them to go home peacefully have failed.

So, We Texans begin rounding up these illegals and forcibly return them to their home across the border and then average citizens take up arms to guard the border.

Well the U.N. passes a resolution condemning such actions and votes to send a force into Texas to stop forced deportations.

One thing leads to another, lots of violence and now we find 40 thousand blue helmets on our soil.

They've effectively halted all forced deportations, disarmed the citizens of Texas and are in dialog with Rick Perry to change our ideology so we can incorporate millions of illegals on to this land which was once there's.

Military spending is one of things specifically spelled out within the constitution to be an expense. Hiding behind the cost for something that is clearly in our interest to be involved it (should it come to that) won't go over very well and is very much like what the Libtards have done since 2003.

I cant believe Im seeing what Im seeing in this thread, but isolationism is the SUREST way to get people IN THE UNITED STATES killed.

Internal strife within a nation such as Iran is something we should only wish for. Given the current conditions over there, this could potentially go on for a long time with several benefits to the safety of the U.S.

The biggest benefit is the large amount of people who are standing opposed to a recent election, the supposed winner of that election, and now possibly to entire leadership system. Until the government can get their internal conditions stabilized, they really can't afford to spend much time on the outside world.

I say we keep our heads down, and don't give the Iranian regime a target to point their fingers at as a potential cause of any election problems. Let the unrest play out. The longer it goes on, the better the chance that there may be a more positive in their politics.

Military spending is one of things specifically spelled out within the constitution. Hiding behind the cost for something that is clearly in our interest to be involved it (should it come to that) won't go over very well and is very much like what the Libtards have done since 2003

Of course! Military spending for self-defense is a perfectly legitimate function of goverment. Military spending to become a world nanny state, however, is not what the founders envisioned.

Clearly in our interest? I don't think that the president has a crystal ball to determine any more than he ha as crystal ball to determine whether more welfare or housing subsidies are in our national interest. After all, back in 1953 the president thought it was "clearly" in our national interest to overthrow a democratically elected government in Iraq. Most recently, the president thought it was "clearly" in our national interest to support dictatorships in the Muslim states in the former Soviet Union.

Fighting for Freedom? They’re shouting Allahu Akbar and their leader declared himself ready to be a martyr, Islamic style. I think of the economy and see that a good deal of it is owned by the Red Chinese, as in 60-70 million murdered; the guy responsible in a mausoleum (like Lenin was), supportive of N. Korea (as in reduced to cannibalism) and supportive of Burma (as in slaughtered monks). There seems to be an enormous contradiction in getting all hot and bothered about a civil war among Muslims while allowing ones economy to be taken over by a country that in terms of body counts, out-hitlered Hitler and out-stalined Stalin.

All the Islamic countries are insanely Anti-Jewish all are run by cut-throat dictators, none respects womanhood, none allow freedom of anything.

The Iranians CHOSE the Islamic revolution; chances are the the Nutjob DID actually win the elections. This affair is entirely their business.

And there's nothing in the Constitution, to my knowledge, that allows for the paying of tribute or ransom, yet that's exactly what Congress did concerning foreign policy with the North African Barbary States...and interestingly enough, they were also Muslim who practiced the very same ideology that we are dealing with today.

This is not about ideology.

Well, oddly enough, the Barbary Pirates, to justify their actions, used the same book that the Muslims use today to justify their actions...the Koran. But you keep telling yourself that this is not about ideology.

We went there with a purpose supposedly to disarm the regime, free the people from tyranny and enforce the U.N. resolution

Which means we are bound by the Geneva Convention to restore and ensure public order and safety. The Libertarian view that we should have left after deposing Saddam, and the failure to find WMD's, is not consistent with the Geneva Convention, nor is it practical.

My point is, unless a foreign state directly threatens the security of our nation (and I'm not talking about cave dwellers), we should not intervene.

Cave dwellers? You're definitely a Paulian. You have the same understanding of the enemy that he does, which is none at all. Go ahead, stick your head in the sand. Thank God you guys are a small minority, because to be perfectly honest, ya'll are dangerous.

Of course! Military spending for self-defense is a perfectly legitimate function of goverment. Military spending to become a world nanny state, however, is not what the founders envisioned.

Clearly in our interest? I don't think that the president has a crystal ball to determine any more than he ha as crystal ball to determine whether more welfare or housing subsidies are in our national interest. After all, back in 1953 the president thought it was "clearly" in our national interest to overthrow a democratically elected government in Iraq. Most recently, the president thought it was "clearly" in our national interest to support dictatorships in the Muslim states in the former Soviet Union.

I love how easily you feel the need to speak for the founders. Especially since the founders, in their time, had no idea things like jets and international air travel and all that stuff were even possible.

It doesn't take 6 months to cross an ocean like it did back then. We have interests in the region even if it's just so that if we don't get involved, someone ELSE will.

Go hide in your shell if you want, but you'll only be missing out on something that will be vitally important to the United States, her allies and our very core interests. I've said in other comments it's not there yet, but it will be very obvious when the time has come.

Where in that vapid, silly document you kindly linked for me does it say that a state of war exists between the United States and the Republic of Iraq? Hate to sound like a scold, but words mean things!

What is ironic about your post is that yes, words do mean things.

Resolution:The U.S. Congress yesterday passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq.

Dictionary.com:1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation;

The resolution does contain the definition of the word "war". Yet you ignore it and call it vapid.

As I said the resolution was a Constitutional declaration of war.

BTW don't worry, because you don't sound like a "scold". You instead sound like somebody who is incorrect.

. You mischaracterize the foreign threat of that period. During the eighteenth and century, our enemies didn't have to "cross an ocean" to attack us. They were just next door. At various times, we were surrounded on all sides by imperial powers, the British superpower to the North, the Spanish to Southwest, and the French to the West. In this respect, we were less "isolated" from military attack that we are now. The Canadians and Mexicans. are not a military threat (as the British, French, and Spanish Empires once was).

The founders and their successors in the early Republic had to contend with direct foreign threats on a daily basis. BTW, I don't claim to "speak for" the founders. They were great men but hardly demigods.

Your cute little shtick makes people think libertarians are crazy and have no sense of proportion. Words of encouragement to the rioting Iranians is a million miles from invading Iran. Like I said....no sense of proportion

332
posted on 06/21/2009 11:38:07 AM PDT
by dennisw
("stealth tribal warfare" is what the Sotomayor nomination is about)

Okay, since that is the only mode of argument you understand let me turn the tables: Do you support legalization of drugs? If so, why are giving libertarians a “bad name?” You must be a “doper” to take such a “wacked” position.

"To the people of Iran: You are rich in culture and talent. You have a right to live under a government that listens to your wishes, respects your talents, and allows you to build better lives for your families. Unfortunately, your government denies you these opportunities, and threatens the peace and stability of your neighbors. So we call on the regime in Tehran to heed your will, and to make itself accountable to you. The day will come when the people of Iran have a government that embraces liberty and justice, and Iran joins the community of free nations. And when that good day comes, you will have no better friend than the United States of America." - President George W. Bush, January 13, 2008.

That fear is legitimate. Those reparations resolutions are prologue and lots of freepers will agree on that. Very few agree with you on there being any problem with some encouraging words for the rebelling Iranians

339
posted on 06/21/2009 1:52:49 PM PDT
by dennisw
("stealth tribal warfare" is what the Sotomayor nomination is about)

I am not a “neo” anything, and don’t ever call me one or suggest I change my handle again, or I might tell you to eff off...

I falsely advertise nothing - You have assumed too much on the basis of too little evidence (none).

I am to the right of Barry Goldwater....Senior...in every conceivable way.

BTW, WTF is a ‘Moselm’ Fundamentalist? In your neglect of spell check, you fixed exactly nertz!

Easy buckaroo - I recognize a typo when I see one - I make them regularly enough myself!

I use the various terms interchangeably, and am not particularly attached to many of them, but my personal fave is probably my pejorative term, ‘muzzies’.

I do not really believe there is such a thing as a militant islamist, nor a moslem fundamentalist. These are all whitewash terms concocted by the media and the muzzie scum that feed them spoonfuls of tripe. I use them only to mock the pseudo-media that produces them.

In real terms, I believe that there are only moslems who practice their Islam as written in their qur’ap, and those who do not do so.

Those who are killing infidels, fellow moslems, and breaking/damaging/wrecking things are by definition real moslems following the commands of their phony pissant moon-god alla-uzzah. Those who are peacefully living and letting live in their communities are either NOT real muzzies, or simply have not acted like real muzzies YET.

I do not much know or care who Gaffney or Ledeen are.

Most of what I know about muzzies came to a head on 9-11-2001, buit they were throwing crippled old Jewish Americans off of cruise ships and hijacking airline flights and committing mass murder in Olympic villages long before that.

Canon Sell wrote about the muhammadans over a hundred years ago, and he was spot on about them. It is not so much a religion as a twisted, sick, evil cult of death worshippers in practice.

“Alla” is in fact, Satan, in my studied opinion (and if there are,as before, any lurking muzzies on this thread, they can all kiss my infidel azz!)

Very few agree with you on there being any problem with some encouraging words for the rebelling Iranians

If you want to give Mousavi, a confirmed Islamist and former henchman (and current fan) of Khomeini, "words of encouragement" that should be your right as individual. I hope you are prepared to share the future consequences of such a decision. For that reason, I don't want our government to do the same.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.